WolfeNotes.com

Christie’s Climate Defying Fossil Policy Must Be Stopped

[UPDATE – 3/18/16 – Game on! Protesters being dragged out of BPU meeting by police

 

As the planet’s temperature just reached a “terrifying milestone” and scientific evidence mounts on the role of methane (natural gas) in warming, tomorrow the Christie Board of Public Utilities (BPU) is expected to rubber stamp approval of yet another major natural gas pipeline fossil fuel infrastructure project.

The NJ Natural Gas Co.’s “Southern Reliability Link” through the Pinelands is on BPU’s agenda – BPU will approve the pipeline AND preempt local control – extinguishing democratic rights – yet no public comment is allowed during the BPU’s hearing tomorrow:

2. Docket No. GO15040403 – In the Matter of the Petition of New Jersey Natural Gas Company for a Determination Concerning the Southern Reliability Link Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 and N.J.S.A. 48:9-25.4.

It is simply insane to be approving more fossil infrastructure given the climate crisis, which demands a dramatic shift in energy infrastructure investments to renewable energy.

Scientists warn that we must leave over 80% of known fossil fuel reserves (coal, oil, & gas) in the ground to avoid exceeding climate tipping points and catastrophic warming that would threaten industrial civilization.

In addition to climate insanity, this pipeline would violate the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan and is based on fraud – the NJNG pipeline planners manufactured a false military need for the project to circumvent Pinelands CMP restrictions.

The Pinelands Preservation Alliance BPU petition absolutely demolished NJNG’s alleged “resilience” justification for the need of the project:

“The undisputed facts unequivocally show that NJNG is not seeking to install its pipeline for “reliability” in case of another natural disaster such as Hurricane Sandy or the Polar Vortex of 2014; it’s simply seeking to increase its profit margin. How do we know this? By simply looking at the numerous contradictions put forth by NJNG. (facts not presented here, full PPA brief provided upon request)

PPA also uncovered emails between NJNG and military officials that  reveal the fraud. PPA’s argued:

The facts show that there is no need for or demand on Joint Base for the NJNG pipeline.

Despite knowing of this NJNG fraud and despite huge public opposition, once again, Pinelands Executive Director Wittenberg went behind the back of the Commission and supported the NJNG pipeline.

The day before last Friday’s Commission meeting, without the knowledge or approval of the Commission (personal communication) or publicly disclosed during her monthly management report,  – just as she deceptively did for the South Jersey Gas pipeline – Wittenberg promoted Gov. Christie’s fossil agenda and wrote BPU in support of the pipeline (Burlington County Times):

In a letter sent Thursday from commission Executive Director Nancy Wittenberg to the BPU, she said that the staff reviewed the discovery documents, transcripts and legal briefs submitted by Chesterfield and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance to the BPU, and that their opinion of the project “remains unchanged.”

“The only new issue raised as part of the BPU process pertained to whether the proposed project was associated with the function of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst,” Wittenberg said in the letter. “The application record for the proposed project aptly supports the joint base’s need for the proposed project. Thus, the application has demonstrated that the proposed gas main is a permitted use in a military and federal installation area.”

We hope that BPU will hear from the public tomorrow – we’ll keep you posted.

Read DEP’s “PRIVLEDGE (sic) AND CONFIDENTIAL” Management Report On Sparta Mt.

Scandalous incompetence and manipulation of the public

DEP says that NJ Audubon’s support “exceeded our expectations”

The Christie DEP recently proposed an incredibly unpopular plan to log the Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area (SMWMA), a magnificent 3,400 acre forested tract in the heart of the NJ Highlands Preservation Area. The land was purchased by Green Acres funds for permanent preservation.

Not surprisingly, that DEP plan immediately was met by strong public outrage and opposition, including objections by conservation groups and local governments and nearby Lake Homeowners’ associations, who all were blindsided by the DEP proposal.

One of the first big public expressions of this outrage and opposition occurred in Hardyston Township.

I filed OPRA public records requests for communications between DEP managers and NJ Audubon, who prepared the SMWMA logging plan.

The internal DEP email and management report I got back is an embarrassment.

And it raises serious issues about the “symbiotic” relationship between DEP and NJ Audubon.

It is incredibly revealing of how the Martin team thinks inside their bubble, how they circle the wagons, and how they engage in fact free spin.

Read this memo below and note how they characterize and dismiss criticism as “emotionally charged” and attack critics as manufacturing “illusions”.

This DEP “management report” illustrates just how technically incompetent, petty, and political the Martin management team is and how they rely on fact free PR tactics and desperately seek the political cover provided by NJ Audubon.

Is there one fact or even an attempt at a scientific analysis that you would expect in a Report to the DEP Commissioner in response to strong public criticism of a logging plan in a Highlands forest?

Believe me, I’ve written and read many memos and reports to the DEP Commissioner and this one is a new low. In fact, I’ve never read a memo to the Commissioner this transparently craven, political, and fact free, even from the DEP press office whose job it was to present the political arguments and media aspects of any public controversy.

These Martin people are pathetically incompetent and totally unprofessional – I’ve previously criticized DEP Assistant Commissioner Boornazian as an incompetent hack, but in this case his own words prove the point.

So, for your reading pleasure, in full, here is how the Bob Martin DEP Management Team responded to public opposition of hundreds of people in Hardyston township.

Note especially the symbiotic relationship between DEP and NJ Audubon and how manipulative DEP was in political deployment of NJ Audubon, a group that DEP just gave $500,000 of open space funds to for a conservation easement of about 70 acres of already preserved land (think about that, while townships across the state go begging of scarce open space money).

Also recall that NJ Audubon received $140,000 from a billionaire elite private hunting group to develop the logging plan, which was written by a private forester paid by NJ Audubon:

Media Blackout of Christie’s Executive Orders On Deregulation & DEP’s Abandonment of Environmental Justice Program

We need to set the policy context for the latest Christie scandal de jour and the media’s response to it.

We are not at all surprised by the Newark Public School’s lead scandal – not at all.

In fact, on March 9, the day DEP issued the first press release, we wrote:

The DEP press release raises as many questions as it answers, particularly regarding who knew what when.

Let’s hope the press corps asks hard questions and uses OPRA and FOIA to get the actual documents from Newark Public Schools, DEP and EPA.

The underlying problem is not confined to the Newark Public School system, or to lead, or to drinking water or to the City of Newark. It is statewide systemic racism and malign neglect as official public policy. That policy story is being completely ignored.

Today, a new round of outrage and recriminations has emerged as a result of the (failure to disclose is SOP) revelation that the problem has existed for years and was not disclosed by local and state officials, see NJ Spotlight story:

• LEAD-CONTAMINATED WATER FOUND IN NEWARK SCHOOLS NOT A NEW PROBLEM

While all the Claude Rains faux outrage grows old, by far the best on point rant is by retired Star Ledger reporter Bob Braun, whose blog has done spectacular work on the privatization of Newark’s public schools, see:

• Hey, Newark—Where’s your pride? Where’s your dignity? Where’s your outrage?

I love Bob’s work and sent him the following note, which just scrapes the surface to outline the racist Christie policy context that is being ignored by mainstream media:

Bob – superb rant – let me know if you want the links to all the documents I refer to below.

I focus on State environmental and public health policy and regulatory issues, so from day 1, it was obvious to me that Christie would preside over a racist policy.

Let me highlight a few of the indicators:

1. In its final month, the Corzine DEP issued a major Report on environmental justice that found poor and black cities were disproportionately impacted by pollution and that there were strong correlations between pollution risks and race & income – the poorer and blacker the worse the risks. For details, see:

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2009/12/dep-discovers-discrimination-dumps-environmental-justice-issue-in-christies-lap/

With that hot potato dumped in the lap of the incoming Chrisite administration, what did Christie do?

2. On his first day in Office, Christie issued 4 sweeping executive orders – EO#1 imposed a moratorium on regulations. That killed a proposed drinking water regulation in the pipeline (perchlorate) – the signal was sent: no more costly DEP regulations. No more focus on environmental justice, seen as a drag on the economy and redevelopment. No more “unfunded state mandates”. No more “job killing red tape”. Slogans.

In response to that outrageous Christie policy, what did environmental justice advocates do?

3. The press never wrote that story – primarily because the environmental group leading the EJ effort – the NJ Environmental Federation – had ENDORSED Christie and was providing cover for him.

Seven years later, the group’s Newark organizer, Kim Gaddy, running for school board, self promotes and now hypocritically blames Christie for the NPS lead scandal – no mention of her own history.

4. Christie not only abandoned the environmental justice program, his DEP openly warned EJ advocates to back off and disregard the December 2009 Corzine DEP EJ Report – – see the DEP Hearing Report on the Hess natural gas plant air permit. (I’ve posted the link to this case, but will write in detail about this soon. It is an outrageous story.)

5. But the Christie DEP could not have accomplished this racist betrayal and have it ignored by the corporate  press without a little support from hometown collaborators. Let me give 3 specific examples:

a) Ironbound Comm. Corp. cut a deal and did not strenuously object to the 20 year renewal of the garbage incinerator that should have been shut down. That 1 facility emits over 13,000 POUNDS of lead per year to Newark’s air – what Dr. Peter Montague called “a billion lead bullets to the brains of Newark’s kids”.

b) ICC cut a deal on the Hess natural gas plant – a pure shakedown.

c) More recently, ICC was joined by NY/NJ Baykeeper to SUPPORT a flawed EPA corporate compromise half assed cleanup of the Passaic River’s dioxin contaminated sediments. Like Judas, they were bought off by EPA grants.

Finally, another disgraceful example of what you refer to as Baraka’s “naiveté”, the wealthy white “open space” crowd – the groups like NJ Audubon Society I call the Green Mafia – blatantly and cynically used Baraka and black kids for a photo op and political support of the Open Space ballot question.

All this racism has gone on not anecdotally, but as a matter of POLICY.

And you can be damn near certain that no corporate media outlet will report this story.

Record Mis-States Date of Discovery of Toxic Vapor Intrusion

“C” is for “Cowardice” and “Corruption”

Stop whining! Dupont is a patriotic military contractor who installed vapor systems “for FREE”! (snark!)

The headline writer at the Bergen Record must have a dark sense of humor, because in a typo he suggests exactly the cheerleading journalism in the story today – break out your Pom-Poms girls!

Cleanup hopes put to the test in Pompon Lakes

In the story’s first paragraph, reporter Jim O’Neill claims that the vapor intrusion was discovered in 2008:

The groundwater under the homes is contaminated with PCE and TCE, cancer-causing solvents that were dumped at a DuPont munitions facility decades ago and spread through groundwater to the adjacent neighborhood. In 2008, officials discovered the solvents were vaporizing up through the soil in some of the basements in the area.

That is flat out false.

O’Neill has been provided a “confidential” timeline developed by the NJ DEP and he therefore knows that the 2008 discovery claim is false.

But it is even worse, because the timing is critical and suggests fraud and a coverup by Dupont, EPA and NJ DEP and an intent to mislead homeowners to extinguish millions of dollars of Dupont’s liability for harms to human health and reduction in property values of homes impacted by their toxic vapor plume.

Below is the “confidential” timeline DEP developed, that I published on January 8, 2012.

I also submitted comments to the USEPA and testified about this at public hearings (read the EPA public hearing transcript on the Dupont RCRA Corrective Action Permit, starting at page 17):

I want EPA or anybody else reviewing this transcript to conduct an investigation into DuPont and the EPA and state DEP’s disclosure of the vapor intrusion issue, and that could be done through the EPA Inspector General’s office or through the Department of Justice. I believe there’s been wrongdoing, there’s potential fraud, and it may rise to criminal levels.

I think that that needs to be looked at because not months after DuPont received a liability waiver from the litigants in this town, then the disclosure of vapor intrusion accidentally just happened to occur

I find that to be —

(Applause.)

I find that on its face to be implausible given DuPont’s scientific expertise and knowledge of the site, EPA’s scientific expertise and knowledge of the site, to suddenly, in 2008, after the liability waiver has been issued, to suddenly tell the people and the people who live in those homes that they have a vapor problem. It’s just not credible.

I include additional details about how the timeline relates to EPA and DEP regulatory requirements and the settlement of the Dupont litigation that let them off the hook for millions of dollars in damages:

1) Vapor Intrusion coverup: A decade long  failure to warn and take action

At the [Jan 5, 2012] Dupont [RCRA] public hearing, one of the points I made (which I wrote about in F is for Fraud) was to question who knew what when on the chronology of the vapor intrusion issue and ask why residents were not warned about the poisoning and risks in their own homes.

If people knew, they could take action to prevent exposure to chemicals in their home.

I simply find it difficult to believe that one of the most scientifically and legally sophisticated chemical corporations in the world didn’t understand the vapor problem until the 2008 disclosure and that the timing of the 2008 disclosure had nothing to do with a legal liability settlement deal reached to end litigation.

After the public hearing (I assume in response to my testimony on this issue), someone sent me a trove of DEP emails regarding behind the scenes negotiations with Dupont and EPA (more to follow on that), including the below timeline (probably prepared as a CYA by NJ DEP).

This closed door process would never had happened if the Dupont site was cleaned up under Superfund, as should have happened back in 1982, when EPA conducted an HRS scoring and the site qualified based on risks.

Under Superfund, residents would have a seat at the table and be involved in all the back room secret discussions between Dupont, NJ DEP and EPA listed below – which began over 10 years ago!

Additionally, I was not aware that the groundwater plume that is the source of the vapor intrusion was a “CEA” – a loophole in cleanup requirements known as a groundwater“Classification Exception Area” – under NJ DEP cleanup regulations.

Without going into all the technical details here, this raises significant regulatory and legal issues, if for no other reason that federal EPA RCRA regulations do not recognize a NJ State CEA and that Dupont was required to certify the safety of that CEA. How could EPA have signed off on RCRA compliance and certified the Dupont site under RCRA?

As is obvious from this timeline, Dupont, NJ DEP and EPA regulators were in no hurry and failed to notify homeowners about risks.

These failures occurred despite the fact that vapor intrusion is a direct contact exposure and a public health risk that equalifies as an “immediate environmental concern” (IEC) under NJ DEP regulations. How did Dupont certify that the CEA was in compliance? How did DEP accept this certification?

Vapor intrusion also is  of direct relevance to US EPA Assessment of Environmental Indicators – groundwater and human exposure under control – (CA725 and CA750 – see below) EPA must certify to Congress pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 .

Dupont Pompton Lakes Site

TIMELINE

Vapor Intrusion Pathway

Trenton meeting with DuPont officials (mentioned VI pathway must be addressed) 03-30-01

USEPA Assessment of Environmental Indicators (CA725 and CA750) 12-20-01

John Boyer’s review of South Plant Region RIR (requires VI assessment on-site) 03-13-03

Teleconference with DuPont re: meeting next week & EI Determination of VI Pathway 05-23-03

DuPont provides letter “Indoor Air Evaluation for Four DuPont NJ Sites” 05-30-03

Diane Groth’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion 08-27-03

John Boyer’s review of Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion 09-11-03

Teleconference with DuPont, consultant, re: Vapor Intrusion assessment 09-17-03

NJDEP Review of  “Initial Indoor Air Assessment”   09-19-03

John Boyer’s review of Proposed GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination 11-07-03

John Boyer’s email to Barry Tornick (USEPA) on GW Investigation for EI  11-14-03

DuPont Progress Update on VI Investigation for EI Determination12-12-03

John Boyer’ss review of  “Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination” 02-03-04

NJDEP’s review of Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination 02-09-04

Diane Groth’s email regarding basis for TCE/PCE screening levels for VI  02-10-04

John Boyer’s review of Update on GW Sampling in Support of EI Determination  05-13-04

John Boyer’s review of Summary of GW/SG Results for RCRA EI Deter (VI) 05-04-05

John Boyer’s review of Response to Comments Letter (VI)  07-11-05

Trenton meeting re: indoor air sampling requirements   02-15-06

John Boyer’s review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation Work Plan   02-21-06

Response of VI Investigation Workplan Response   05-03-06

Trenton meeting with EPA, DuPont re: indoor air sampling  01-31-07

Development of Anticipated VI Screening Levels    02-09-07

John Boyer’s Review of Vapor Intrusion Investigation & Remedial Action Work Plan 07-20-07

NJDEP’s Approval of VI Investigation & RA Work Plan  01-16-08

DuPont’s 4th Quarter 2007 Progress Report (mentions various email correspondence) 01-31-08

Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation  02-14-08

Teleconference re: vapor intrusion sampling implementation   03-06-08

Site visit re: sub-slab soil gas sampling at residential house  03-20-08

DuPont’s Proposed Sub-Slab Vapor Sample Collection Procedures for Building SSDS04-15-08

[Regulatory End Note: 

There are additional revealing DEP regulatory actions that are not on that timeline – for example, in 1987 or so, DEP proposed to revoke the groundwater discharge permit for the shooting pond.

Dupont objected strenuously, claiming that it would force shutdown of thee plant and layoff of like 400 workers.

DEP upper management caved in to Dupont’s pressure and over-rode the DEP staff and issued the permit

Shortly thereafter, the Dupont site was transferred away from the DEP groundwater program that proposed to revoke the permit and allowed to enter into the ACO and transferred the site to a new DEP “Voluntary Cleanup Program” as an alternative to regulatory requirements under federal RCRA.

US EPA has let NJ DEP get away with that for decades – and NJ DEP STILL does not have a delegated RCRA Corrective Action program, 32 years after Congress passed HSWA to RCRA in 1984.

Commissioners Not Allowed To Attend DEP’s Private “Stakeholder Meeting”

“Jeep Jamboree” Slated To Destroy Pinelands This Week

[Update below]

Just days after being savagely criticized in a must read Philadelphia Inquirer editorial for being “spineless”, “looking the other way” as their Executive Director defied their decision not to approve the South Jersey Gas pipeline and usurped their power, and “abdicating” their responsibility to protect the Pinelands, on Friday, what appears to be a majority faction on the Commission made moves to restore the Commission’s credibility.

First, the Commission finalized long delayed reforms to the “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) policy that led to the South Jersey Gas pipeline debacle, an implicit rebuke to Executive Director Wittenberg and Legal Counsel Roth, who orchestrated the MOA.

While I argue that the new MOA policy is toothless because it does not provide standards for an equivalent level of protection and was not adopted via regulation as an amendment to the CMP – particularly the new substantive requirement for an escrow account to pay for Commission staff review time – the more symbolic  point is that it shifts the policy role back to the Commission and away from ED Wittenberg.

Second, and more importantly, the move to restore the integrity and independent policy control of the Commission was led by deposed former Chairman Lohbauer, along with support from Commissioners Ashum, Lloyd, Prickett and Rohan Green (Courier Post)

Commissioner Mark Lohbauer said it is now up to the commission to create the map tool for DEP to use for enforcement. “The problem (destruction) goes beyond Wharton, but we’ve got to start somewhere,” he said.

The commissioners informally agreed they have the legal right and responsibility to close areas or roads to protect the Pinelands and can develop a Wharton map designating open and closed areas that DEP can use for enforcement. The commission has no enforcement power.

This group seems likely to garner a majority on the Commission and obviously is a threat to the leadership of Gov. Christie’s installed Chairman Earlen and his puppet, Executive Director Wittenberg. Earlen will have the support of Commissioner Avery, who is serving as the Administration’s hit man. But I can’t see the federal government’s representative and many other Commissioners defending the indefensible, particularly in light of the withering criticism laid out in the Inquirer’s editorial.

However, I was very disturbed by the comments of the newest Commissioner, Mr. Chila, who urged the Commission not to “jump in” to the DEP’s failed process. Chila obviously does not understand the Commission’s responsibility and authority under the CMP. This photo is revealing – as Lohbauer leads, Chila frets:

But, as became obvious during Friday’s meeting, they will be resisted at every step of the way by Executive Director Wittenberg, who is working closely with the Christie DEP and throwing up roadblocks (pun intended!).

A remarkable example of that was when Commissioners expressed interest in attending DEP’s March 22 “Stakeholder” meeting on enforcement of motorized vehicle access. Wittenberg told them that she was invited by DEP and would represent the Commission. When Commissioners still expressed an interest in attending the DEP meeting, Wittenberg told them that they could not attend because the DEP meeting was “by invitation only”.

How is it possible for the DEP to block Pinelands Commissioners from a key meeting regarding the Pinelands?  How can Wittenberg, who reports to and serves at the pleasure of the Commission, defend DEP’s restriction and tell Commissioner that they could not attend?

I had previously warned the Commission about the DEP’s “by invitation only” abuse and testified again on Friday to call that “radical” and unacceptable.

The Courier Post story picked up on this controversy, but got it wrong – “the Commission” has NOT been invited. Only Executive Director Wittenberg was invited. She is NOT the Commission, as is now obvious. The CP story only focused on the exclusion of the media, and not Commissionrs who wanted to attend:

Meanwhile, the DEP has scheduled a private meeting March 22 with Pinelands municipalities in the Wharton tract and various environmental and outdoor groups to update them on law enforcement efforts to prevent further damage to the forest’s habitat, roads and trails. The commission also has been invited. A DEP spokesman told the Courier-Post that media are barred from the invitation-only meeting but would be informed of law enforcement and other developments at a later time.

Motorized Access debate continues

Friday’s Pinelands Commission meeting was packed for another debate on how to start to limit the massive destruction of irreplaceable natural resources by motorized vehicles (for a discussion and photos, see my prior post Anarchy in the Pines).

Emile DeVito, PhD of NJ Conservation Foundation began the debate by reiterating his field study that showed over 30% of wetlands meadows are destroyed and about the same amount already were negatively impacted.

But you don’t have to believe Emile or my photos, just take a look at the promotional YouTube of the 2013 “Jeep Jamboree”. (viewer warning: obscene destruction)

I don’t know what kinds of DEP permits and Pinelands Commission approvals were issued to this “Jeep Jamboree”, but it is obvious that the Jeeps are destroying federally protected wetlands and “waters of the US”, as well as blatantly violating federal and State “Surface water quality standards” adopted under the federal Clean Water Act.

I would assume that EPA, USFWS,  and/or National Parks Service/DoI all would have strong objections to that destruction and fragrant violations of the federal Clean Water Act and/or Pinelands National Reserve law.

Or perhaps a Court could issue an injunction to block this Jamboree?

[Technical End Note: Just so Commissioner Chila, ED Witenberg and the public can understand the Commission’s powers and the criteria for designated roads and areas that are inappropriate for motorized vehicles, here are the rules under the CMP @ NJAC 7:50-6.143(a)2-3.:

2. No motor vehicle other than fire, police or emergency vehicles or those vehicles used for the administration or maintenance of any public land shall be operated upon publicly owned land within the Pinelands. Other motor vehicles may operate on public lands for recreational purposes on public highways and areas on land designated prior to August 8, 1980 for such use by state and local governmental entities until designated as inappropriate for such use under (a)3 below.

3. The Commission shall from time to time designate areas which are inappropriate for use of motor vehicles. Such designation shall be based upon the following considerations and upon consultation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and other interested persons:

i. A need to protect a scientific study area;

ii. A need to protect the location of threatened or endangered plant or animal species;

iii. A need to provide a wilderness recreational area;

iv. A need to prevent conflicts with adjoining intensively used recreational areas;

v. A need to protect historic or archaeological sites;

vi. A need to protect critical wildlife habitats;

vii. A need to address a situation of public health and safety;

viii. A need to protect extensively disturbed areas from further impact; and

ix. The extent to which such road closure would substantially impair recreation access to and uses of surrounding resources.

* obviously, regulated features like wetlands and streams (“waters of the state”) are included in these criteria.

and access restrictions an gates DO WORK:

[Update – I just came across this and had to share it as perhaps one of the most cynical pieces of shit I’ve ever read – does anyone really think that the Jeep “Jamboree” participants are there to observe rare, threatened and endangered species?